There's always some lame excuse for inaction and not resisting

Yes, sometimes bad legislation is going to pass no matter what, but that is NO reason not to make a statement. Someone with principles as opposed to teen-age "go with the popular kids" mentality votes "no" against bad legislation, even if it's going to pass anyway.

But here is a list of the excuses:

Reagan administration: "We have to be bipartisan."

Bush Senior administration: "We have to be bipartisan."

Clinton administration: "I want everyone to like me, so I will back down whenever the Republicans whine about my stands on health care or GLBT rights." (Clinton)
"We have to be bipartisan." (Congress)

2001: "We have to give the new president a chance."

2003: "We don't have a majority in either house."

2005: "We don't have a majority in both houses."

2007: "We have majorities, but we don't have the White House."

2009: "We have majorities and the White House, but we need to be bipartisan."

Phooey to all of the above, expressions of either cowardice or corruption. Thanks to those spineless and/or corrupt politicians in Congress we have

1) A war in Iraq and Afghanistan that the Republicans can say "we" voted for--and that "we" are continuing

2) Lax regulation of financial institutions, leading to the current mess

3) Tax cuts for the rich, benefit cuts for the poor

4) A bunch of holdovers from the Bush administration in the Obama administration

5) A weak credit card "reform" bill that is a mere slap on the wrist

6) Single payer advocates not allowed a place at the table in health care negotiations

7) A bogus "war on terror" that the Democrats should have called bullshit on from day one

We've had nearly 30 years of Republicans and Republican Lites, and funny thing, the much maligned "far left" has been correct about nearly everything they've complained about (the Iraq invasion, loosening of financial regulations, the dangers of tax cuts, the dangers of "free" trade). I hate to say "I told you so," but

I TOLD YOU SO!

If the Democrats don't come up with real change, people do have options other than voting Republican, two of which are voting third party or not voting at all. You might whine and moan about how that will do no good and hand the election to the Republicans, but frankly, if the Dems can't push through Real Change(R) when they have more control in Washington than they've had in the past thirty years, well, then, it will be the least they deserve.

Think about it. I've been watching politics since at least 1964, and I cannot think of a time that the Republicans went all soft and woolly and sentimental about "bipartisanship." No, they've always been out for blood, and funny thing, they've not only controlled the government more than the Democrats have but they've managed to enact more of their economic agenda (what they REALLY care about--the social issues are just bait for the rubes) than the Democrats have.

K&R

:-)

until something more important than the American soul is at stake.

Well said!!

when calling out war criminals. I'm just so impolite by mentioning the worst crimes our countries politicos have ever committed, I guess I should learn to keep my mouth shut regarding systemic torture and a conspiracy to commit war. (NOT GOING TO HAPPEN, EVER)!

They can't even gather up the courage to call a war criminal a war criminal.

And the Obama administration is continuing the military agenda of the Bush administration.

As Michael Moore asks in Sicko, "Who are we?"

I'm liking the answer less and less. I could kick myself for not emigrating when I was in my 30s (I had three opportunities), and now I'm too old.

It's past time to say enough, and mean it! Hold the embezzlers and traitors accountable. Find out where the corruption started and how high it was acted upon.Change is what the voters wanted, and in a democracy, the majority should be respected and not ignored.

not contemptuous of them.

And that's what I'm seeing in both business and government (perhaps it's the big business mentality affecting government): contempt for ordinary people.

no matter how much real change the Democrats come up with, people will deny that they came up with any change. We'll see lists of all the failures, and the successes will be downplayed or ignored or denied.

with what JFK called "vigah," a thousand little victories that no one notices mean nothing.

The important issues of the day are Iraq/Afghanistan (two unnecessary wars, in which Obama wants to ESCALATE the one in Afghanistan), the health care mess (where the Obama administration is shutting out advocates of a popular solution), and the economy (where Obama began with yet another bailout of the financial institutions without any concessions on their part. Witness the credit card bill with no interest caps, just for instance).

So yeah, I don't think they've done a lot. I don't even see any movement in the right direction. I see a slightly kinder, gentler status quo.

which is why Obama has to do something dramatic. Politics, whether you like it or not, is theater. And, if Obama doesn't make some kind of dramatic change, he will fall victim to just what you said.

It happens in every other field of endeavor -- not just politics. When you want people to know you've made a change, you do something dramatic. A coach benches a player or shakes up the batting order. An executive fires someone or promotes someone or gives out big bonuses -- or takes away big bonuses.

Tiny baby steps, reaching out to people who hate you and pissing off the people who supported you is a one-way ticket to failure.

Obama needs to be careful. He's following the same path Mike Dukakis took in his first term in MA -- and he was drubbed at the polls in the next election. His original supporters deserted him and the people he "reached out to" laughed in his face.

you'd damned well better change something that needs changing, and in a highly visible way.

I've noticed over the years that American voters admire gutsiness and integrity. Even if they disagree with the politician's position, they can admire him or her for sticking to principles and having a coherent set of values.

Once they say, "OK, that principle is negotiable and so is that one," the voters lose interest.

Furthermore, the first rule of Negotiation 101 is always to ask for more than you think you can really get. Obama's tactic should have been to go all out for single payer. The Republicanites would have fought hard, but if we ended up with a public option open to all while keeping the private system open, the Republicanites would have felt that they "won concessions."

By offering a public option as an afterthought, Obama is guaranteeing that what he ends up with will be a real victory for the Republicans, in the worst case scenario, a Massachusetts-type fiasco of compulsory private insurance with no limits on the insurance companies.

Near where I used to live, there was a German restaurant that had been there for years and years. It was very good, and it was run by an old German guy who was there from open to close every day and who ran the place with an iron hand. I used to eat there a lot.

One night, he came over to the table and we were chatting. I said "Gee, Rupprecht, you're kind of hard on the staff." He said: "I ask for one hunnert percent. I get eighty. Vat do you tink vould happen if I asked for eighty?"

I've never forgotten that.

"Politics is compromise" is a meaningless statement if you GO IN already compromising. It's either stunningly stupid, cowardly, or just for show.

Everybody is forgetting about that Stem Cell thing,
and focusing on little stuff like Expanding WARS,
increasing Military Spending,
Doubling Deficits for Billionaire Bailouts,
dumping Civil Rights for ALL,
holding on to the Unitary Executive,
covering up for War Criminals....

you know, all that little stuff.

half-assed or moving in the wrong direction.

Obama basically made the Federal government get out of the way. Federal funding for stem cell related research is still either completely frozen or not even allocated. On the positive side, researchers in the are won't be hunted down and burned at the stake. Hardly an achievement, to put it bluntly.

I am still willing to give Obama the benefit of the doubt, but I am not very impressed with the crumbs we are getting... if that is the patter that is going to start to emerge for his administration, color me less than impressed with his idea of "change."

I don't give O any special kudos for that. In my book he has reneged on just about every promise he made in the primary. Grandstanding does not a policy make. Halfheartedly supporting something in government is killing it. Baiting and switching is not a policy that gets you a second term.

not much more than the stroke of a pen, and it cost him little or nothing politically, since most of the people that honked off weren't supporting him in the first place. The question is, what things have Barack Obama and his administration fought hard for and what things have they fought hard against? Not just what has been talked about in flowery and elevated language, or what has been accomplished with the stroke of a pen, but what things have real political effort and capital been expended on.

.

like his suggestion of a National high speed rail system. 99% of DU was on board with that idea and couldn't wait for the project to get started...but now we haven't heard another word about it. Here in Florida the people have voted overwhelmingly to fund a state high speed rail system in election after election. It's a very popular idea, but politicians seem to see it as too much "change". Even the repugs I know want positive change from Obama (meaning real change from Bush policies), so I think that your statement is more a matter of projection.

anyway? Or did I get that wrong. You act like we shouldn't hold Pres Obama's feet to the fire when we have huge issues facing us that can't wait. If you don't agree with specifics of the OP then state them.

"no matter how much real change the Democrats come up with, people will deny that they came up with any change". So what if they do? First we have to come up with the change, then judge.

Those of us in the mainstream are currently referred to as "far left",
and we really have been correct far more often than not over the last
decades.

Clearly, "Good Governance" is not terribly high on our "Leaders'"
priority list, and hasn't been for quite some time.

Maybe even Goldwater.

That shows you how far right the political spectrum has shifted. Anyone who is where Robert Kennedy was in 1968 is treated as if they're some wild-eyed Bolshevik.

For a real eye-opener, rent the Spencer Tracy-Katherine Hepburn movie "State of the Union." In it, Tracy is supposed to be the Republican candidate for president. Yet he expresses opinions that would be in Kucinich territory today.

It's disgusting and it's sad.

Nice rant.
:kick: & R

the poor are worthless, lazy eaters is now a "far left fringe Liberal". Suggest that corporations and the wealthy kick in as much as the rest of us do and you're a "Socialist" or "Commie". The MSM has served their masters well.

"Your Democrats are our kind of conservatives, your Republicans are just plain scary, and you have no "Left" in America".

took over from Thatcher and not only failed to undo many of her worst policies but added annoyances of their own, such as increased government snooping and surveillance.

Now they're about to be voted out in favor of the Tories (Thatcher's party), and some observers think that Britain's third party, the Liberal Democrats, will make their best showing ever.

(Labour used to be a real labor party that represented the working class in a quasi-socialist manner.)

Tony Blair was all about "Third Way" politics -- just like the DLC "Third Way" that's been rotting the Dem Party from within.

sw

Thanks, Lydia. :hi:

:kick:

I couldn't agree more.

Or is it 80 we need?

half of them will vote with the one Republican. :eyes:

In the spirit of bipartisanship and reaching across the aisle, of course.

Oh, and every country in the world has to have a Democratic president, too.

The Democrats are the ones that take the heat of the Republicans for the messes they create. During the brief period of being the perceived minority, they wait long enough for the people to forget and reelect the republicans for a continuation of the rape and pillage until they can't be tolerated by the masses anymore.

Lather Rinse and Repeat.

This time it's totally different. The Democrats aren't even trying to appear moderat or socially conscious. They have forgotten what that means, and don't get the idea that they are violating the law of equilibrium. I think this time the people are noticing, and forgiveness for multiple frauds are not going to be granted as easily as they have been in the past.


We know that Obama is just the PR face of the current times, so it's not a matter of disliking Obama, but a matter of seeing through the PR and the Rhetoric to the private mettings held in the Corporate boardrooms of the Government and their cohorts.

I have a great love of America, but to see it squandered by a small group of highly influential people is treasonous, and unfortunately, the Government is a willing enabler. I wonder what it will take to wake the American people up so they are able to see the fraud for themselves, but I know one thing, education or history is not on the list of priorites for many Americans.

Just kidding.

Great post. Kick and recommend.

Rather than a prescription, I see it more as an inevitable dynamic if the Democrats Senate doesn't manage to leave their cowardice and corruption by the wayside and pass meaningful legislation. Same goes for the administration. If Obama isn't perceived to have gotten out there and visibly stood up and put it all on the line (even if it's a losing battle) then he'll be in no position to persuade folks that "if only we had more Democrats" we'd be able to accomplish reforms that are in many cases extremely popular among the electorate, but shot down by the big money lobbiests.

If those two things happen- and it's not at all clear that they won't, then 2010 may well look a lot like 1994. Instead of boots on the ground, there'll be boots in the closet. Instead of GOTV, there'll be apathy or another resurgent 3rd party, as we saw in the 1990's.

Frankly, if I were a Senator running for re-election in 2010, this would concern me- and I'd damn well be putting pressure on my colleagues to knock off the Republican lite, suck it up and flip off their sponsors who, if the Democrats are successful in achieving more than cosmetic changes on the major issues- really have no place else to go.

:eyes:

HAVE lost me, our Administration is REALLY losing me... and YES, once again in 1010 it will once again be THE MOST IMPORTANT ELECTION OF OUR LIFETIME!

SCREW IT!! I don't' know what I'll do next time out... but I could use that tired old phrase, fool me once, etc... but would rather say, I'M SICK OF BEING FOOLED!!

I'm SICK of politics here in America and if you please, go ahead and tell me to LEAVE the country, however... EASIER SAID THAN DONE!!

I have WISHES... I've once again LOST HOPE!!!!!!!!!

is collecting campaign contributions. We, the voters, are just herd animals to be gulled, fleeced, and corralled as needed. The financial elite are their true constituents.

Rec'd, of course.

sw

Guess that's more important than health care, gay marriage rights etc. :grr:

That alone right there should be enough to make one at least pause and think first. Particularly since they are the ones stuck playing catch-up, big time.

The GOP fights for corporations, the dems fight for the corporations.
Bernie Sanders fights for us.

Couldn't agree more.

I swear unto Bog, this place is like going to temple every day to chant. Today we have the list coupled with the repetition of 'have to be bipartisan.'
Buddhists chant a list to keep their minds in the right place.



Did you skip that tedium? So do I skip the tedium of the list of injustices in class struggle.
I see much less benefit in the Frustrated Democrat chant. It feels like suspended animation or the wheel of suffering. What is political chanting, other than voluntary self propagandizing? We have all internalized the list and recite it daily. The recitation always ends with a question, what to do? I think that the contented cows of the party are giving you half the answer. These forums are for the benefit of the Democratic party, not radical analyses of the functions of empire. Look elsewhere. Partiless radicals are welcome here for the same reason atheists are welcome in church. But you will not alter the purpose of these forums.
What to do?
“The way to peace is non violent, non participation in anything you believe to be evil” - Albert Einstein.
non violent, non participation
look it up

are dishonest people, using dishonest tactics in an attempt to shut down vocal discussion. Why don't you go sit on a pile of rubbish and meditate like swami ji, if that is what pleases your ego moment. Just don't expect others to buy into your dogma.

I can't understand you.
'Look,'
I'm already looking. Writing as if you are speaking is pretentious.
'folks who push religion in the guise of politics (use) dishonest tactics in an attempt to shut down vocal discussion.'
I am desribing your politics as a poor imitation of religion. I'm not religious. This discussion is not vocal.
'Why don't you (shut the fuck up).'
I know you are, but what am I?
I think you must disagree with me in some general way. I suspect it is the way I suggested above. Hard to tell.

.

speaking of anything. These contentless retorts are emotionally supportive within the circle, but are not otherwise respectable.

... you seem to favor pedantic verbal excursions to nowhere.

To each their own, I guess... It was just that your post criticizing other people's writing struck me as a funny incident of a pot calling the kettle black.

You were just being frivolous and flip? Because you wanted to join in my pedantic excursion? That is not each their own. Why the alibi? It is taking us far off topic.
Twice you have declared me this or that without explication.

I can still point out your hypocrisy and yet not give a rat's ass about you personally. Not a hard concept to get, unless you have an over inflated ego or narcissistic personality.

... anyhow, I will leave you alone in your expedition for Red Herring. I don't like fish this early in the morning.

Farewell, and have a nice one.

And I'm the one with style problems? Enjoy yourself, I'm done.

Does not make it Religious Dogma.

Or is it the fact that the poster also posts a quote from Albert Einstein that triggers your Religious warning bell which starts you salivating like a rabid dog?

The act of sleeping is nothing more that biologic meditation, so what harm do you see in concsiously clearing ones mind if that is how they choose to make rational decisions or clear away the clutter of day to day life?

I think you are confusing pacifists with the Religious right, who are beliegerant, fascists demanding that you conform, while the pacifists are like water, when contained, they find another path. Nor can it be controlled when the volume overwhelms the banks of the channel.

The original message of the poster was that of not participating in anything that violates your ethical boundaries, and I happen to agree with that. It is the only way that ordinary peole can exercise their will in face of a Government that no longer listens to their voices.

:P

contributed to the financial crisis last fall!!!

But heaven forbid we take any kind of REAL STEPS to reinstate genuine re-regulation!

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=104696260

excuse. But of-course is we will lose our election funding is the real one.

it's time for a third party challenge no matter what the result. Looks to me like what we're getting is Republican policy no matter what name the party in power chooses to call itself.

They are interested in Profit, Market Share and image.

When they start churning out crap like GM did, which is exactly seeing the so called Government do in regards to leadership, they will go Bankrupt. The US Government is in the process of Crushing, then Grinding up the last remaining prototypes of the EV-1 Electric car and rolling out the Hummer, just like GM did in 2000.

I expect the faith in the U.S. Government to fail within the next few years, and the next War the Corporateers start, in order to wrap themselves in the flag and create an atmosphere of fear and compulsory mob obedience in the name of Patriotism is going to fail.

They are already in the process of an ornate, Enron style coverup of Financial insolvency so large and so fraudulent, that if exposed, would cause the populace to rise up en masse. It is not a matter of Republican or Democrat anymore. This involves the survival of the existing power structure built by the Corporate Military Industrial Complex since the end of World War II.

It is clear that they saw this day coming many years ago, which explains why we have such a huge and lopsided Military budget, Energy policies that reward ongoing pollution of our Air, Water, and even the Genetic Makeup of our food. When will people wake up to find that they can not be assured that anything is Organic anymore, or that seeds of Heirloom varieties of food grown for centuries are more expensive and about as easy to find as precious metals?

We have efficient eletrolysis patents for splitting water that are suppressed and ignored, and even hidden in the military arsenal is the guise of "National Security".

I've been waiting for Obama to unveil the Governments version of Stan Meyer's water fuel cell, but gosh darnit, relatives of Stan Meyer are still alive, and that wouldn't look good, because at this point, the suppression has gone on so long, it would make people ask, "What else have they weitheld from us for the last 30 years?"

:applause:

"...if the Dems can't push through Real Change(R) when they have more control in Washington than they've had in the past thirty years, well, then, it will be the least they deserve."

Excellent OP. Good example of line demarking "centrist/moderate" from "progressive."

They are, at best, tinkering with a corrupt system. At worst, they are complicit in the corruption.

I had lunch with an old friend a couple of days ago who is as much a Republican as I am a Democrat. We both have been hit hard by the failing economy and were commiserating when he said out of the blue "and guess whose NOT hurt by all of this? Guess who is living comfortably and not giving any of it a moment's thought"? I ventured "Oh, I dunno, Dubya"? and he said yes, that's right, he screwed us all over and doesn't give a damn. None of them do. He said that he DOES hope that Obama is a big success; he doesn't care that he's on the opposite side of the fence politically, he t wants change for the better. Amazing; even a hardcore RW repug is cheering for a dems success because things are too bad not to hope for the best. So they do have a golden opportunity here;the people voted overwhelmingly for change, and ift here isn't significant change for the better they WON'T get another chance. This is it, imho. I know that I will be voting third party for the first time in my life if it becomes overwhelmingly obvious that they are all protecting interests other than ours by year two. I never thought that I would say that after 2000, but we can't keep on the same track and expect different results. That's the definition of insanity, after all.

How can you claim to be "correct" on all those issues? You put it as though what you think is correct is proven to be so. There's still a lot of valid arguments FOR the wars and FOR free trade. This kind of thinking is dangerous.

it's not like she's proposing anybody get killed--quite the opposite, since that's what invariably happens in wars (and it's improbable that the US "saved" over 1 million lives à la the WWII Allies)

It's a question because it's not an 'exact science' (or whatever you'd like to call it). You can't claim to be correct the way she does on issues that's highly debatable. You're only correct to yourself and your constituency. Not to everyone else - and everyone else is still half of the country (or some other mentionable fraction).

I reject blind party loyalty, Machiavellian deceptions, hard-hearted Victorian-style callousness toward the unfortunate, and bratty Libertarianism.

And in those cases, I'm convinced that I'm right.

If you think that waging aggressive war is good or that making the poor even more miserable than they are is good, then you're immoral by the standards of all decent people.

im starting to think ideology has little to nothing to do with anything anymore...
its just used as a pawn in the big game to control sides and make them go after each other instead of holding people in power accountable.

the odlest game in the book.

Not just lax regulation, but putting a bandaid on another bubble(s).

Federal tax cuts have been provided to the overwhelming majority and there are some weak signs the ultra wealthy are going to have to pay more and not going to be able to hide income as casually as in the past.

The holdovers especially in justice, no hope for falsely prosecuted Dems, no justice for war criminals and I am leaning to blame President Obama for enabling future lawless Presidents, let alone his own lawlessness.

I thought "War on Terror" is no longer in usage. It's 'Overseas Contingency Operation' now.

Gibbs said last week that President Obama had taken an oath to protect the American people. When Bush folks said that BS we jumped all over them. The President took an oath to protect and defend the Constitution, no? Unless I missed something, there was not a peep.

When are people going to wake up and realize that the government needs to be afraid of the people and do their bidding, not the other way around?!

he hasn't turned the boat around yet.

n/t

Why do you hate the POWDER?

:sarcasm:

especially since it look as if the swimmer is getting swept away by the current.